GROUP REPORTS

IMPROVING ORGANIC FARMING TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - LOIS PHILIPPS

INTRODUCTION

It is unavoidable that from all forms of food production systems there are environmental costs. For those concerned with organic farming systems the objective is to reach a balance between producing sufficient high quality food whilst minimizing the risk to the environment. Reaching this equilibrium requires the involvement of farmer, adviser, researcher and policy-maker. All of whom need to understand the dynamic whole system nature of organic food production. Sadly, this is not always the case. It is our role to bring about a better understanding of the complex interactions of an agro-ecosystem and the impact that management practices can have on the system. Through better understanding of the system we can seek to implement improvements to organic farming practices and to organic standards.

Frequently policy-makers require system comparisons to provide evidence that system A is better or worse than system B. The question of nitrate pollution has received considerable research efforts in the United Kingdom. The question frequently asked is: are nitrate leaching losses from organic farms smaller or larger than those from ‘conventional’ farms?

CASE STUDY

Nitrate leaching from conventional farms in Nitrate Sensitive Areas pilot schemes and organic farms.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) of the United Kingdom funded a large research programme investigating the impact of nitrate pollution from the United Kingdom’s agricultural systems.

The United Kingdom’s Nitrate Sensitive Areas (NSA) scheme was established in 1990 to test approaches to the reduction of nitrate losses from commercial conventional farms. The imposed modifications were expected to reduce nitrate leaching.

Nitrate leaching losses from three commercial organic farms certified under the Soil Association Standards had been monitored since 1985. The organic farms had similar soil types and climate to the conventional farms under NSA management.

Data were available from two main sources; a research study of nitrate leaching from organic farming systems during 1993-1996 (Philipps et al., in prep.); and measurements on conventional farms controlled under the NSA scheme (Archer et al., 1998).

The organic farms operated ley-arable rotations that ranged between four and seven years, there was a total of 66 site years of data available, 32 site years from ley and 34 site years from arable cropping. There was a total of 168 sites of data available from the NSA study. However, only four site years of data were available for the transition from ley to arable cropping.

Sites differ in management history, weather, soil type and cropping. The key question of losses from organic systems dictated the need to make comparisons in terms of total N loss (kg N ha^-1) rather than concentration of nitrate-N in the soil profile as this will vary with drainage volume. In order to make comparisons of nitrate losses, similar crop types were compared.

The measurement of nitrate leaching loss was made using porous ceramic cups in both systems, employing the methods described by Lord and Shepherd (1993).

Table 1 shows the leaching load in (kg N ha^-1) for organic and conventional ley-arable systems.

Table 1.

The comparisons between systems give rise to discussion points about different practices. The underlying problem that arises from this sort of case study is that whilst policy-makers may choose to draw conclusions about the environmental implications associated with the different farming systems, the benefits arising from the whole system approach are not represented. For example, whilst nitrate leaching losses are comparable between the organic system and the modified conventional system, there is no account of the reduced impact of other agrochemicals from the organic system.

For the environmental impact of organic farming systems to be fully understood, the methodologies, statistical analysis and importantly, the research funding needs to be developed to encompass not only a multi-disciplinary approach but a systems approach.

REFERENCES

Archer, J.R., Johnson, P.A. and Lord, E.I. (1998) The Pilot Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme: Final Report. HMSO, London.

Lord, E.I and Shepherd, M.A. (1993) Developments in the use of porous ceramic cups for the measurement of nitrate leaching. Journal of Soil Science 44 - 435-449 pp.

Philipps, L., Stopes, C.E. and Woodward, L. (in preparation) Nitrate leaching losses from organic farming systems. Submitted to Journal of Agricultural Science.

REPORT ON THE WORKSHOP ON PILOT FARM PROJECTS - OTTO SCHMIDT

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty participants of different backgrounds from 14 countries attended the Workshop.

A. Overview on working methodology

1. Introduction round:

a) Why did I chose this Workshop?
b) What is my personal experience?
c) What input can I make to the group?
d) What are my main questions?

2. Information about some projects and discussion.

3. Classification of pilot farm projects.

4. Discussion of a checklist for pilot farm projects (in three subgroups):

a) Checklist for demonstration farms.
b) Checklist for development farms.
c) Checklist for evaluation/monitoring farms.

5. Establishment of a network of pilot farm projects (discussion in subgroup).

6. Presentation of the results and discussion.

7. Conclusions, open questions.

B. Introduction round - outlining relevant questions/suggestions for discussion points

• What is important to establish a pilot farm project?
• Why do we need pilot farms/on-farm research?
• Why finance pilot farm projects?
• Scientific acceptance of on-farm research.
• Criteria for the selection of farms/farmers (main important issue).
• Participation - how is it achieved?
• How to take decisions on priorities?
• What kind of research is interesting/needed?
• Which methodologies are needed?
• Guide for farmers’ and advisers’ use.
• Relationship with family members of the farmer.
• Integration of pioneering farms.
• Adequate comparison organic <> conventional farms.
• Include further aspects such as on-farm processing and rural development.
• How to make the results accessible.
• Networking: how to make it more efficient and equitable.

The definition of the main discussion areas was based on the priorities which came out in the discussion round.

C. Information on some projects (contributions of group members)

• Pilot farm project Northrhine-Westfalia (D).
• Guide for on-farm trials (D).
• Partner farm approach (NL).
• Examples of organizations of target and working groups (F).
• Link with consumer promotion (BUL).
• Performance of organic farming in Mediterranean countries (New project; see page 13) (EGYPT).
• Selection criteria for pilot farms on an evaluation and development pilot farm project in Switzerland.

D. Classification of pilot and demonstration farms

Nic Lampkin, WIRS, Wales and Otto Schmid, FiBL, Switzerland

Demonstration farms (pilot farms in a broader sense)

Aim: To show that organic farming successfully works (inspiration) as it is.

Target (interested) groups:

• other organic farms: focus on innovative practises/farming systems;
• converting/conventional farms: focus on successful (economic) farming systems;
• consumers: focus on «attractive» (consumer-friendly) farming systems;
• others (policy-makers, etc.).

Development farms (pilot farms in a narrow sense)

Aim: To implement further development of participating farms (change) and assessing (evaluating) progress during a period of time with the possibility for other farmers to learn from these experiences.

Target (interested) groups:

• innovative farmers, who want to further develop their farm;
• researchers interested in a system approach;
• extension workers.

Farms for evaluation of the performance of organic farming

Aim: To evaluate the economic, social and ecological performance of organic farms in comparison to other (conventional or organic) farms and/or with regard to policy aims based on investigations in a defined geographical area (region or at country level, EU, etc.), if possible during a period of time, with the possibility/option to involve farmers in the process in a participatory way.

Target (interested) groups:

• policy-makers;
• administrators, who have to implement policies;
• extension workers, who are interested in knowing deficits;
• researchers, who are interested to develop evaluation systems.

Research and experimental farms (no pilot farms)

Aim: Farms for specific research questions: results will be communicated indirectly (e.g. through publications or extension services) to interested parties (farmers, advisers, etc.)

Target (interested) groups:

• researchers;
• extension workers;
• farmers who want an answer to a specific problem;
• discussion: it was decided to discuss a checklist for pilot farms for each of these categories in smaller working groups.

E. Checklist for pilot farm projects

Main issues for a checklist for pilot farm projects

As a result of the group discussion the following checklists were elaborated:

A: Checklist for demonstration farms (see Table 1).
B. Checklist for development farms (see Table 2).
C: Checklist for evaluation/monitoring farms (see Table 3).

Table 1. Checklist for pilot farm projects DEMONSTRATION FARMS

Table 2. Checklist for pilot farm projects DEVELOPMENT FARMS

Table 3. Checklist for pilot farm projects EVALUATION/MONITORING FARMS

PROJECT PROPOSAL BY THE GROUP OF COLLEAGUES FROM MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES

TITLE: ASSESSMENT OF ORGANIC FARMING IN MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES

Objectives:

1. To evaluate the status quo of organic farming in Mediterranean countries
2. To classify the most important organic farm types in such countries
3. To identify a list of research priorities, based on the needs of farmers
4. To set the stage for further research based on a network of organic pilot farms in the selected countries.

Region: Mediterranean countries (Mediterranean climate conditions)

Working steps:

Select participating countries
Identify responsible persons
Organize a planning committee to write the project proposal
Allocate funds
Implement the project

STRATEGIES FOR HIGHER PRODUCER VALUE IN ORGANIC FARMING SYSTEMS - FRANCESCO ANSALONI AND FABIO MARIA SANTUCCI

INTRODUCTION

Participants in this Group came from universities, farms and institutions (INRA, IAM, FAO, IFOAM, DEMETER, NGOs). The main activity field of the participants from university are related to economic aspects (animal production, ecology, agro-food-chain, consumer profiles, marketing strategies, rural sustainable development, consumption, distribution, processing, local markets, marketing organic products, food quality). The only one farmer participant was interested in organic wine production. The other researcher was an agronomist (cropping systems).

PROBLEM AREAS

Participants have identified three main aspects that show relevant problems about development of the organic farming sector. The problems found were:

1. Farm production level

In Europe and East-Europe; in particular the developing sector of organic farming in Albania was developed.

2. Agro-food chain

Several critical points between market subject (commercial relations between farmer, processing and distribution) were identified.

3. Impact on environment.

PROBLEMS TO SOLVE

The main problems that this Group identified consisted of food quality and some research methods.

Food quality needs to be improved in its aspects and also in promotion, devoted specifically to finding a better way to communicate food quality to the consumer.

In relation to research methods the Group discussed the farm production level and also agro-food chain. The Group suggested an interview with a multiple skilled expert and local experts from different geographical and market zones, to compare organic farming systems versus conventional systems, to establish links between researchers and farmers and to cover the needs of exchange data and knowledge.

FUTURE

The ideas for action to plan research in the future were identified in the following subjects:

1. Food quality.
2. Agro-food chain.
3. Dissemination of information between researchers and farmers.

To investigate on food quality, the Group proposed building a network of experts/ researchers to develop some basic concepts. These concepts are related to (i) guidelines (e.g. standard control, consumer image, sensorial aspects, analytical properties, food preferences, vital activity, sensitive crystallization, photo emissions, etc.); (ii) evaluation of social aspects of quality (e.g. ethical aspects of labour); and (iii) estimation of environmental impact derived from processing methods used to produce food (e.g. sustainability, biodiversity).

After that, it was underlined that the implementation of guidelines must be controlled and communication to the consumer about the level of food quality must be improved.

Agro-food chain research is a second research subject that participants considered relevant to study. The Group suggested building a specific research network to analyse characters (dialogue and behaviour transparency between market subject) and the evaluation aspect of the social value of organic farming products. This action should achieve income equilibrium between each economic actor of the agro-food chain (producer, processor and distributor).

It was suggested to increase research on the dissemination of information between researchers and farmers. It is necessary to identify methods to exchange data and knowledge between the actors of economic activity of organic farming and their relationship with the market subject. The goal should be to increase efficiency in organic farming.